Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
what does table 3 in the lancet paper show exactly?
i suspect you're asking this to get me off track when i inevitably write something you can run with and continue to deflect. but here goes:
table 3 of the lancet paper shows the number of deaths, adjusted for population size, from previous pandemics. neither that paper nor your calculations appear to take into account number of people infected, which would seem relevant to me but i guess the variation in diagnostic techniques over this period of time would render any comparison meaningless.
the 1968, 1957, and 1918 estimates are based on excess deaths. the sources for the data values are provided in the text. the take home, as i have already said, is that, having applied their stats to make numbers comparable (and i'm sure you can debate their methods) this is the second most lethal pandemic in modern history. this is based on data from last may.
if you think it is incorrect you need to get in touch with the authors so they can submit an erratum to the lancet.
i debate the veracity of any unreferenced data. especially from people with an eye wateringly obvious agenda to downplay a crisis who've already demonstrated limited understanding of basic calculations.do you dispute the veracity of the global estimated tolls from 1957 1969 and 1918 flu?
thanks for reminding me, luckily i do.It is all very well trusting something but you need to know and understand what you are looking at,
that's why i posted referencesYou are a randomer on the internet too !
oh well thank you so much that you will give me your time! amazing.I will deal with your other statements when you do that.
i can't be fucked anymore. you obviously don't want to accept that this virus poses a genuine threat and you patronise everyone who thinks otherwise. your digging in and deflecting shows a complete lack of critical thinking or willingness to engage in other arguments. you routinely misrepresent the data you link to and other people's points to further your erroneous arguments.
if you post more disinformation on other areas i will challenge it but i'm done with this back and forth.
the bottom line is that without intervention this virus could have rendered a significant percentage of the working age population unable to work or working at impaired productivity for a protracted period. but you're convinced people's fear of it and the potential damage it could cause is overblown.